Places for People Group Limited (202212799)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212799

Places for People Group Limited

27 February 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of damage to the building, paving, and the management company’s response.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder in a first floor flat within a low-rise block.
The landlord is responsible for management and maintenance of the estate the property is located in. The landlord has delegated management of the estate to a management company who act as its agent. The service level agreement between the landlord and management company states that it will resolve property and estate management enquiries within 5 working days.
The landlord’s complaints policy operates a 2 stage process. It states it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
The landlord has provided a sublease for the property as opposed to the superior lease, as such the Ombudsman has been unable to determine the responsibilities of the parties. The generally accepted position is that the landlord is responsible for maintenance and repairs to the structure, exterior and common parts of the building.
The Ombudsman made 2 previous determinations on 22 October 2020 and 22 April 2022 (case references 201912843 and 202109254), that related to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the management company. These specifically considered the resident’s complaint about grounds maintenance, his request for the landlord to end its contract with the management company, and his concerns about the performance of the estate management company. The Ombudsman found there was no maladministration in the first case as the landlord was not under an obligation to replace the management company at the request of the resident. In the second case it found that there had been an offer of reasonable redress to the service failure identified around the performance of the estate management company.

Summary of Events

A surveyor inspected the building on 12 August 2021. The report identified some hairline cracks, which it stated were not structural issues, but typical of the type of walling and materials. The surveyor provided recommendations on dealing with the cracks and said the landlord may wish to monitor them for a period of 6 months. They also detailed that, following access to a ground floor flat, the concrete path and garden space was heavily cracked in areas. The surveyor said they believed the nearby trees were influencing the cracks to an extent and it would have been beneficial for the path to be repaired.
In January 2022, the resident communicated with both the landlord and management company. He explained he would be speaking directly with the landlord due to a lack of faith in the management company. The management company attempted to speak with the resident. He contacted the landlord and told it his contractual relationship was with it as the freeholder, and not its management company. He raised issues about trees at the rear of his property and said:
1. There was ingress of tree roots from an area of mature growth into a communal area. This caused significant damage to paved areas and led to cracking and trip hazards.
2. He had raised the issue with the landlord previously and felt both it and the management company were not taking the matter seriously. He was concerned it was a safety issue.
3. He advised that excess tree root growth was causing damage to a neighbour’s patio, and it could lead to current or further structural damage to the building itself.
The management company confirmed to the resident that all future communication should be with it and direct communication with the landlord was to stop. It advised him that the landlord had the right to appoint an agent to act on its behalf, and although he disputed this, he had been asked to deal with the management company. The landlord addressed the tree roots issue on 18 January 2022 in a response to a separate complaint. It said:
1. The damage was within the boundary of the property. His neighbour had been contacted and advised about how to escalate the issue.
2. His previous reports related to tree root damage to the communal refuse area and a path adjacent to that area. These were the responsibility of the leaseholder who had let the property to the current resident.
3. It had attended the development the previous week and would happily discuss this in more detail. It then reiterated his point of contact was the management company.
The landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 response to a separate complaint on 23 February 2022. It addressed his concerns about the tree roots in that response. It stated it had arranged for a local manager to inspect the site and asked the management company to confirm the action it had taken so far to resolve the issue. It advised that the tree roots were coming from a communal area that its management company oversaw, and it had instructed it to produce a plan as a matter of priority. It said it had also asked the management company to contact him and share its proposed plan once the appropriate contractor had assessed the site. It apologised that there had been confusion about the matter and upheld that element of his complaint. It offered £50 compensation.
The parties continued discussions in March 2022. The resident told the landlord he was waiting for an update from it about the trees and how it planned to act on them. He explained he had been copied into an email and the issues which were highlighted caused him extreme concern and reinforced why he did not want contact with the management company. It provided him with a point of contact within its organisation. Later that month, following an inspection by tree surgeons, it told him it had requested a copy of the report and action plan from the tree surgeon. It would not be sharing the report with him at the time as it did not consider the material provided to be sufficiently clear to give him. The landlord said it had asked for further details and that it aimed to share the updated report or provide an update on 28 March 2022.
The resident questioned if the landlord providing him with a contact within its organisation meant that it was now his primary contact rather than its management company. He requested that it share the report and action plan from the tree surgeon as he wanted to know if the tree surgeon had fully understood his concerns and if they were suitably qualified. He reiterated the issues with his neighbour’s property and communal areas and said they were a health and safety risk. He stated the matter was only deteriorating further and the large tree roots could cause possible damage to the building. He also told it to confirm a date he would receive a response. He informed the landlord that he was aware of a meeting between the management company and its contractor on 30 March 2022, about future tree work. He contacted the management company and informed it he was speaking with the landlord about damage caused by the large tree roots. He queried if this was something the contractor or another contractor could inspect. He said something needed to be done to prevent further damage, and that it should not “turn a blind eye” and leave it to get worse.
The landlord confirmed to the resident that he should continue to correspond with its management company for operational and day to day customer queries about the estate. It explained the management company was best placed to respond to and action his enquiries or requests related to operational issues, it believed this was a reasonable position to take. It explained its member of staff was a secondary contact for any queries or concerns he may have around its management of its management company. It apologised for the 1 day delay in responding to him and explained it had contacted the management company, who said:
1. The contractor had been on site during the week and was confident that they had an understanding of the work required.
2. There was another opportunity to attend a meeting with the contractor, which would allow his concerns to be understood fully and factored into the work.
3. The works would commence 18 April 2022.
The resident responded to the landlord and queried if it believed what it had supplied him was sufficient, considering he had been asking for information for 3 months. He highlighted he had not been provided with the report and action plan as he had requested and asked the landlord for a full response on the issue surrounding the tree roots, a report from the contractor, and an action plan.
The management company also updated the resident and told him that it had inspected the trees behind his block that potentially contributed to the damage to the path to the side and rear of the building. It was agreed that when the surveyor was on site, it would ask the contractor to look at the path and mark any trees that they considered required removal. It would also ask them to provide a report identifying the cause of the damage to the path and bin store and the works required for the repairs. The contractor would mark on the plan which trees they had quoted for. If the trees he had mentioned were not on the plan, the managing company would ask for them to be included.
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 April 2022 and provided him with documentation about the trees. It said the management company had agreed to issue an update when a specific date for the works was confirmed. It provided him with a schematic plan showing the trees to be managed and identified the trees to the rear of his block were also included. It highlighted it had asked the management company for a timeline of visits to develop the plan and it reported:
1. The contractor initially attended on 22 February 2022 to review the area and wanted to reattend with a tree surgeon. The tree surgeon attended on 10 March 2022 and work needed was added to the existing tree plan.
1. A meeting took place on 30 March 2022 to ensure all outstanding work could be reviewed, and a revised plan was then provided on 30 March 2022.
2. It had asked the management company to clarify how the recent additions fit with the long term plan to manage trees at the property. It had confirmed the works agreed in March 2022 were in addition to a pre-existing 3 year plan.
3. The management company intended that the next 3 year plan would commence in autumn 2022, with a revised plan being compiled in spring/summer 2022.

The landlord told the resident that it believed there was some confusion as it was not referring to the 3 year plan. It understood that the contractor was taking steps to arrange to meet with him to provide assurances on the long-term plan.

The parties then continued to discuss the matter between 6 April 2022 and 28 April 2022. The resident said:
1. Some of the areas the landlord had highlighted in its plan had received the necessary tree surgery, so its information was erroneous.
2. He had attempted to engage with both the landlord and the management company but was constantly being frustrated and misled.
3. The landlord had also acknowledged previously that it was experiencing significant difficulties obtaining clear information from the management company.
4. He had attempted to communicate with the contractor, and it was apparent that they were not fully aware of the issue of the tree roots and the damage caused. An email he had received made it apparent that the contractor was only informed during the meeting on 30 March 2022.
5. He had concerns about his point of contact due to ongoing issues and past experiences with them. He did not feel it was reasonable for the landlord to suggest they be his point of contact.
6. Although he had faith in the contractor, they could only act on the management company’s instructions, and this was an area of concern for him.
7. He had been provided with several different accounts, and there was also some confusion around the works. He was still awaiting a clear and concise plan for the works and a start date.
8. He wanted an update, as he had not received one since 30 March 2022.
9. He found some of the landlord’s responses disappointing and not particularly helpful. Residents of the development were frustrated and concerned about the “continued sporadic and poor service” that they received from the management company.
The landlord told the resident that it noted his comments and was pleased with his confidence that the contractor understood the issues and works required. Following his comments about his point of contact, it responded and continued to reiterate to him that his primary contact was the management company. It also informed him that the management company had advised that a structural surveyor was required, as there were concerns from the original and grounds surveyors that removing the trees could create more damage to the affected area. It explained that the structural surveyor would assess in more detail and advise if moving the trees was feasible.
Between 5 May 2022 and 27 May 2022, the parties discussed the resident’s concerns. The resident said:
1. He was dissatisfied with its responses following his request. He expected to receive a full response on the tree issue, and this should include a plan of action, dates of actions and full report from the surveyor.
2. He had been in discussions about the trees for over half a year without a resolution and it was not noted on the management company’s list of maintenance on its portal.
3. He reiterated he would not be communicating with his contact within the management company.
4. It was unclear why the landlord had left the matter outstanding for such a long time. It provided different answers and excuses, and he was advised by the Property Ombudsman to communicate directly with it, so he would not communicate with the management company.
5. Both the landlord and management company only answered specific questions and ignored others.
6. The landlord’s response to the trees was “poor”, and it was continually evasive of the health and safety issue.
The resident also contacted the contractor independently about the tree surgery. He explained to them about the tree roots issue and the damage it was causing and said he would be happy to highlight it to them. He told them he knew 2 trees at the top of the car park had been cut down for the same reason recently and explained his contact with the landlord.
The landlord and management company held discussions. The management company explained to it that the resident had assumed the trees to the rear of his property were part of the next “3 year plan” but it had agreed to bring the trees forward into the current year. The plan was in progress but not completed. It explained to the landlord that the contractor was going to reoffer a meeting to the resident to review the issues as they had not previously found any concerns other than those already identified. As the resident had raised several questions, the organisations jointly created a draft response regarding a structural engineer’s report which was due by 20 May 2022.
The landlord responded to the resident and apologised as he felt its responses were disappointing and combative. It offered him a telephone conversation to discuss his outstanding concerns, but the resident did not feel this would be helpful. It told him it understood his requests for further information and had asked the management company to respond. Once received, it would share the response with him. In separate correspondence, it provided him answers to questions he had raised and asked him to inform it if a telephone call would be helpful at any point. It further told him that it had sought advice from its management company and would not add anything further about his point of contact. Regarding the trees, it told him who had completed the survey, and explained a full report was not provided. The only thing identified was that a structural engineer was required to assess the concerns. It advised him that a report was expected that week and it would ask its management company to forward it to him.
On 20 May 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about the managing company’s “lack of responsibility, interest, and care” to the issue. He also raised concern about the landlord’s “responses to date as a freeholder,” and “lack of interest and ability to keep the management company in check and accountable to get the issue and repairs completed.” Following further discussions around other issues, the resident asked again for a formal complaint to be raised on 23 May 2022.
Conversations continued between the parties following the complaint in May 2022. The management company informed the landlord that the surveyor had asked for an area of the ground to be excavated to ensure that they had full visibility. It was only after a recent intrusive survey that they established the extent of the root growth. The landlord informed the resident of the surveyor’s suggestion and told him it was extensive with a large cost. It said it was looking at other options where applicable. It encouraged him to engage with the management company and would keep him updated.
The management company provided the resident with a stage 1 complaint response on 15 June 2022 by email. It thanked him for his complaint and advised it had been provided with the complaint 10 days after he raised it. It said that it had received a quote to conduct a tree survey to allow it to produce a maintenance plan. Once the survey was instructed and the report received, it would then be able to continue addressing the tree issues. The management company told him it had visited the site and took photographs but was unable to identify the trees that were causing the issue. It asked him to show them the area and damage during its visit on 24 June 2022. It apologised if it appeared to be showing a lack of care or responsibility about the trees, but the groundwork had been laid and it then needed to progress this to a satisfactory conclusion.
The resident responded directly to the landlord on the same day as the complaint response. He explained his complaint was about, the length of time taken to respond by the management company to the tree roots issue, and the landlord not holding it accountable. As his complaint was about the conduct of the management company to the landlord, he queried why he received a response from its management company. He reiterated the length of time which had passed, various surveys had been completed, and the matter continued to get worse whilst awaiting further investigations. He queried the reason for the continued delay in creating a plan to fix the issue and asked the landlord to investigate the matter further for him.
The landlord responded and apologised to the resident on 17 June 2022. It explained that the point he had raised was very specific about its handling of the management company in relation to the tree roots investigation. It told him it would raise a complaint. It explained that whilst it did operate independently, it would send out any complaint to the relevant organisations if it believed the matter was for them to investigate which was what had occurred. It said that whoever dealt with the complaint would be able to progress some of it. It had asked the management company for a comprehensive timeline on action and investigations taken in relation to the trees behind his property. It had also asked for confirmation of its action plan for addressing the next steps. The landlord told him the point about contact with the management company had already been subject to a stage 2 complaint and its position remained the same.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 June 2022 and said it had no appreciation for the seriousness of the problem. He advised that the managing company’s response also did not address the tree root causing cracks leading from the communal area behind the garden and refuse stores, or the serious damage that they were causing. He provided images to the landlord and said that it was clear that the roots from the tree in the communal area were attacking the foundations of the building. He stated his neighbour had informed him that their landlord had reported the tree root issue to the landlord and the management company four years ago, and this was also the same issue he had been raising with both of them for over 6 months. He queried why it was only now asking for a comprehensive timeframe from the management company when it was aware four years ago.
Conversations continued between the parties throughout July 2022. The landlord asked its management company to answer the resident’s operational queries. The management company then provided him with a response and confirmed that the owner of his neighbour’s property had raised the issue about the separation of the patio earlier that year. It explained its investigations into the matter and that the results showed that it was due to a different issue to which it was currently investigating. It told him there had been no other recorded incident of any contact on the matter prior to the report that year. It said that it was not suggesting reports did not happen, but that they were not logged with it. If the owner of the property could provide proof that they had reported the issue to it since the beginning of its tenure in 2014, it would be happy to review it.
The resident contacted the landlord and said the issue at the back of his property had been recorded as a repair/ maintenance issue. He requested start dates for the initial works at the back of the property and said the landlord and the management company had ignored the matter for too long. The management company responded and reiterated that all issues should be referred to it. It told him that it understood he had requested permission for residents to pick an alternative surveyor for the intended survey for the clearance of the vegetation and assessment of the crib lock wall and brick structures. The management company said whilst it was happy to review the request, it wanted a rationale for doing so. The management company explained it had asked its surveyor to investigate the issue due to familiarity with the concern. It said bringing in someone new would likely result in delays whilst they familiarised themselves with the issues. The management company reiterated that it, nor the landlord, had any connection with the proposed contractor. It told him they planned for the clearance work for the vegetation to begin in the next 2 weeks.
The landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 response on 13 July 2022. It told him it had completed its investigation into his concerns and its complaint handling. It explained the timeline of his complaint and that it was passed to its management company, and it responded on 30 June 2022. The landlord said he had asked it to specifically consider the 6 month delay in the management company progressing the tree root issue. It advised that an administrative error meant that it believed it needed to respond to his complaint by 13 July 2022 and apologised for the mistake. It then explained its findings. The landlord:
1. Said the tree roots issue was previously dealt with as part of a previous stage 2 complaint and the actions which would be taken had been described in the previous response. It had also emailed him on 29 June 2022 about the issue and provided a detailed timeline of events since the close of the stage 2 complaint relating to the trees and roots to the rear of his property and the actions due to be taken in future to resolve them. It had no further information to add.
2. Explained that the second aspect of his complaint was about how it held the management company accountable over the issue. It had recently conducted surveys of all residents regarding their views on the management of the scheme. Based on the feedback it had gathered, it was in the process of finalising recommendations to senior colleagues within its organisation to support changes and improvement to the service provided. Part of the process was holding the management company to account for the experience of residents.
3. It apologised again that he had a negative experience with its management company and hoped the measures it had provided gave him confidence that it did take the matter seriously, listen to residents, and look to make changes to improve areas where required. It said it would ask the management company to keep it closely informed as to the progress of the matters he raised regarding the trees to the rear of his property.
The resident responded on the same day and asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2. He said he was dissatisfied as he was told the investigating officer would contact him before the response and they did not. He raised further issues with the management company’s response, and not being provided with specific start dates for works which he had requested. He stated the schedule of events remained unclear and works had not begun. He reiterated the length of time the matter had been outstanding and that he felt the complaint handler had misunderstood the basis of his complaint. He said the response related to another matter which had previously been dealt with. He said his complaint was specifically about the “neglect to the communal area” and it was in this area that the tree roots were starting to cause damage to “leaseholders’ property.” He felt the downplaying of the “significant and expensive safety issue” underlined the challenges to the competence in management of the development. This included the landlord’s oversight of its management company as it had not sought to challenge its behaviour and led to a progressive worsening of the situation, to the extent that expensive structural damage was a real possibility.
In a further response on 24 July 2022, the resident told the landlord that it was aware his issue was with the practices and behaviours of the management company. He said he had been advised by the management company that works would commence in the next two weeks and he remained concerned about the impartiality of the surveyor. He advised that the complaint response was poor and missed the issue concerned. It tried to deflect back to an old complaint, and this was not acceptable.
On 29 July 2022, the resident chased the landlord for his stage 2 response. The landlord queried internally if his complaint had been raised on the same day and asked for a response to be provided to him directly. It then responded to him and encouraged him to raise a complaint if he felt its response was not appropriate. It told him it had asked for an update to be provided to him about his stage 2 complaint. It said if he did not want to speak to the provided contact within the organisation, he could speak with the property manager instead. It explained it had asked the management company to vouch for the independence of the surveyor they intended to employ for the required works.
Throughout August 2022 communications continued between the parties. The resident continued to reiterate that he would not communicate with the management company, the works it had advised would begin had not started, and he had received no dates for them to begin. He queried what works had been completed so far and chased a response from the landlord. In separate correspondence, he also queried the progress of his stage 2 complaint as he had not received a response. The landlord asked the management company to provide residents with an update around the tree works and responded to the resident. It explained its stage 2 response would address some of the issues he had raised, and it had also previously responded around his issues with the management company. It then updated him that the management company had informed it that the excavation work for the trees had been completed. It had visited the site, and it believed it would not be possible for him to visibly see all the progress, however, it would ask the management company to provide an update directly to him and his neighbours.
The management company also provided the resident with an update. It explained that there were 4 trees to be removed and that there was essential health and safety work to be completed. This was to raise the pavements due to the roots of the trees causing a trip hazard. It advised that the lead time for the work was 6 weeks. It said it had cleared an area where there were structural issues and was waiting for a surveyor to inspect the area so that it could resolve the issues.
In September 2022, the resident chased the landlord for his stage 2 response and asked it to confirm if the response would be available by 8 September 2022. He told it that he had contacted the contractor and they had informed him that they were not completing any tree surgery in the area. Following its previous email which suggests 4 trees were to be removed, he asked who would be removing the trees. He also asked to be informed if the surveyor had looked to establish the cause of the structural damage since the area had been cleared. The landlord explained to him that it had extended the deadline for his stage 2 response and as such it was due 12 September 2022. It then redirected him to its management company for any updates on the tree works.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 12 September 2022. It explained what it related to and its approach to scrutinising its management company. It advised that he had stated across various correspondence that he did not want to engage with the management company. It then provided its findings and said:
1. He was told in its email of 21 June 2022 that he would be contacted to discuss his complaint about the tree roots. It had spoken to its member of staff, and they confirmed they had not contacted him before investigating and sending their response.
1. They had however reviewed the correspondence between him, the landlord and the management company, and felt that the matter had been addressed in that way. Had they contacted him, he would have been clear on this. It agreed its member of staff had not followed its process, apologised and upheld that element of his complaint.
2. With regards to the tree works, he had requested a specific start date. He had been advised by email on 19 July 2022 that the work would begin within 2 weeks, and it had completed the work to expose the crib lock within the following 2 week period.
3. The inspection and investigation into the issue of the tree roots was an ongoing matter and all residents would be continually advised of progress and next steps. It said when he submitted his stage 2 complaint, he had not been provided with timescales for the work as they were not available at that time. It said it would not uphold this aspect of his complaint as the communication was ongoing.
4. He had stated he did not want to engage with its management company, and he would raise issues with the landlord directly. This was his right as a leaseholder and his contract was with the landlord not its management company. It told him the lease gave it the scope to manage the property as it saw fit and as such, it appointed the management company, and this was within its authority to do.
5. He might not be entirely happy with its service, but as the landlord, it had the authority to delegate the property management services to whomever it chose. It monitored the service levels of its property managers and continually reviewed the services provided to residents and leaseholders.
6. On this basis, it could not provide any alternative contact arrangements for him outside of those offered by its management company. It did not have a team to manage single properties at blocks otherwise managed by its management company. Should he have an issue with its performance, it would advise him to refer to its complaints procedure which included a referral to the Property Ombudsman.

Post complaint

Following the stage 2 response, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. The landlord also asked a solicitor to explain the relationship between the landlord, resident, and management company. An inspection was completed in November 2022 which stated the crib wall was in good condition. A survey was then completed on 19 December 2022 which made recommendations around the structural cracks in the building, pavements, and bin store. The survey explained that there was an obvious problem affecting the grounds around the block and they had a duty to discover the cause and the extent. They advised that the process should commence immediately to mitigate risks of criticism or inactivity, or if there was partial collapse onto pavement causing damage and injury.
The management company attempted to provide a copy to the resident, but technical issues meant this was not done until January 2023. The resident approached the local authority’s dangerous structures team in February 2023. It attended and inspected the crib lock wall and disagreed with the original survey which stated the structure was in good condition as there were areas of localised failure. A letter was sent to the landlord by the local authority on 15 March 2023, asking it to act. A further survey was completed in May 2023 by the landlord which made further recommendations in addition to those of the report in December 2022. The resident continued to ask questions about the surveys and if the landlord intended to follow their recommendations. In August 2023, the management company advised the resident that the crib lock wall had been cleared.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised issues about structural damage concerning his neighbour’s patio. As this did not have a direct effect on the resident, and the landlord identified that the cause of that issue was separate to the resident’s concerns, the Ombudsman is unable to make a determination on that issue.
The resident has said that the landlord has been aware of the issue for at least 4 years prior to his report. As the reports concerned another resident’s property, the Ombudsman is unable to consider or make a determination on that matter in this report.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman and informed it that the landlord wanted to include the costs of works for clearance of the crib lock wall to residents’ service charge costs. He asked that this be considered as part of the complaint. Paragraph 42 (a) of the Ombudsman’s Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord has not acted within a reasonable timescale. In this instance, there is no evidence that the resident had raised a complaint about this issue in his original complaint to the landlord. He did not become aware of the landlord’s intentions around the payment for the works until after the landlord’s stage 2 response. There is also no evidence that the resident had raised this as a complaint or that the landlord had responded. Based on this, the Ombudsman is unable to make a determination on this matter as there is no evidence it has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint’s process. Should the resident still have concerns about the matter, he can raise a complaint with the landlord, and it is encouraged to provide the necessary response. As the matter relates to the reasonableness of the service charge, the resident might want to seek independent legal advice and refer the matter to the First Tier Property Tribunal.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damage to the building, paving, and the management company’s response

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and management company (the spotlight report) explains the Ombudsman considers a management company to be an extension of the landlord itself. As such as the freeholder of the property, the landlord is accountable for the actions and inactions of its management company. This means that the Ombudsman expects landlords to monitor performance and take appropriate action to address poor performance as if it was providing the service. Although mention is made throughout the report to the spotlight report, the landlord is not being assessed against it. This is because it was released part way through the issue complained of. An order has been made below for the landlord to review the spotlight report.
The surveyor in August 2021 identified potential issues caused by the tree roots. There is no evidence that any action was taken following this. This was unacceptable as a safety issue had been identified with the potential for deterioration. Good practice would have suggested further investigations were completed in a prompt and appropriate timeframe to ensure that there was no significant damage and timely action could be taken if required. This would have also allowed for reassurance to be provided to the resident that the matter was being taken seriously.
Following the resident’s reports in January 2022, it took 2 months for an inspection to be completed in March 2022. This falls outside of the timescales provided within the landlord’s service level agreement. There is no evidence provided that a reason for the delays was provided to the resident. Both the landlord and its management company had a duty to manage his expectations in this regard, and the failure by either party to do so was inappropriate. The Ombudsman would have expected to see either the landlord asking its management company to explain the delays to the resident, or take the initiative, identify the cause, and then provide him with an explanation itself. This added to the resident’s frustration and caused him distress as he believed there were genuine structural issues with the building. The failure to explain the delays also shows that the landlord did not take a customer focused approach.
Although it had asked its agent to provide the resident with a plan following its stage 2 response in February 2022, the landlord did not show that it took any measures to ensure this was shared with him. The resident asked on several occasions for the plan to be provided, however, it has not demonstrated that it took this as evidence that the managing company had failed to comply with its request. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to hold the management company accountable to the timescales provided within the service level agreement for response to enquiries. The landlord should have intervened and queried why the information had not been provided to the resident. It should then have taken proactive steps to ensure that either it or its management company provided him with the information in a timely manner.
The resident requested for the initial survey report to be shared with him in March 2022. It took the landlord 17 days to provide the survey. It is acknowledged that there was a delay, however, the landlord appropriately communicated with the resident and explained why it did not share the initial report with him. It also correctly provided him with timescales in which it aimed to provide the information or at least an update. This shows that it had considered its position, understood that the resident had been anticipating the results, and wanted to ensure the information it provided was suitable.
As well as the initial survey report, the resident also asked to be provided with the action plan. No evidence has been provided to suggest that he was ever provided with any action plans about the issues, or that any existed, and this was unreasonable. This caused the resident frustration as he continuously chased the matter. Without an action plan there is no standard the landlord or resident can measure or hold the management company accountable to for the delivery of the required outcome. This would also leave the resident unaware of when a resolution to the issue could be expected. The spotlight report explains that landlords should ensure their processes for responding to service issues, particularly involving multiple parties, include the development and use of clear action plans, and that performance against these plans is effectively monitored. Residents should be able to hold the professionals that are accountable for the quality, safety, and management of their homes to account for ensuring works are resolved in a timely manner.
The landlord suggests in its stage 1 response that it provided the resident with an action plan in its stage 2 response of 24 February 2022. From the evidence, no action plan was provided to the resident about the actions it would take around the issue. It simply explained the actions it had taken at the time and its request for action from the management company. This was not an action plan on how it planned to address the issue of the tree roots. No information was provided about the actions it would take in the future around the concerns. Further, the landlord referred to an email of 29 June 2022 to the resident where it provided the resident with “detailed information regarding this matter”. The Ombudsman requested a copy of this email, and at the time of writing, this had not been provided, as such there is no evidence a timeline or action plan was provided, and this is unreasonable.
The resident also asked for the start dates for works and was often provided with no information. When he was told the dates, on some occasions, the works then did not start then. The landlord has provided no evidence that a reason was provided to him from either it or the management company about why the works were delayed. This was unreasonable and caused the resident frustration.
The resident identified that there was confusion around the works. The landlord could have taken this as an opportunity to confirm progress with the management company and taken stock of any ongoing issues hindering progress. This would have allowed it to then ensure that an appropriate plan of action which could be followed to confirm required surveys and works were completed in a timely manner. Although evidence has been provided of communications between the landlord and the management company, no evidence has been provided that any progress reviews concerning the matter took place. This was inappropriate, as to the resident, there were potential structural issues which needed to be addressed.
The landlord realised there was some confusion around the matter and its management company was talking about the 3 year plan. There is no evidence that it explained to the resident the steps it was taking to ensure that the management company provided it with the correct information. This is especially the case as the managing company’s failure to provide it with the correct information requested, led to a delay in the landlord providing the resident with the information he had requested.
The resident told the landlord that the information it had provided him was erroneous. No evidence has been provided to show that it looked to clarify the accuracy of the information following the resident’s report, and this was inappropriate. The landlord should have clarified the information and then explained to him either why it was correct or provided him with the appropriate information if it found it was mistaken. The failure to do so added to the resident’s lack of confidence in its actions.
The resident further explained what he expected from the landlord in response to his requests. The landlord missed an opportunity in its response to explain the complexities of the issue and manage his expectations about when it would be able to provide him with the requested information.
The landlord repeatedly asked the resident to communicate with its management company about his concerns and explained why it insisted he should do so. This was inappropriate as the landlord should own its relationships with its residents and be proactive in pursuing resolutions on their behalf from its management company. It has not demonstrated that it considered what was reasonable in all circumstances. This was because the resident had an unresolved issue with the management company due to its communication in the past. It failed to show that it had taken this into consideration regarding his refusal to communicate with the management company and if it was appropriate for it to insist, he communicated with it despite this. The expectation is that landlords take ownership for getting clear updates and action from its management company. However, despite its insistence that he communicate with its management company, the landlord acted appropriately by intervening and asking that the management company update the resident.
Given the history between the resident and the management company and the continued reports of “poor” service, the landlord’s management of the situation was unsatisfactory. It should have ensured that a process was put in place so that both it and the resident were appropriately updated without its input, except for where it was necessary. This could have aided in reducing the level of communication between the parties and used as an opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations about the service it was able to provide. This would also have been in keeping with the service level agreement for the management company. It would have also allowed it to effectively measure the service provided to the resident around the matter, as it could have measured the management company’s responses against the service level agreement.
In one instance in an email of 21 September 2022, it was suggested that a reply was not provided to the resident, following correspondence with him, until a member of the landlord’s staff returned from leave and this was unreasonable. Prompt and timely responses are key to good relationship management between a landlord and its resident’s. This represented a potential deliberate delay, and the Ombudsman would have expected an explanation of any known delay to be provided rather than a suggestion to ignore the resident’s response. Consideration should have been given to the level of distress the ongoing issue had on the resident. The failure to take this into consideration and suggest delaying a response was unacceptable.
The landlord has not demonstrated that it employed methods to measure the management company’s performance on the matter. These are things such as regular meetings to ensure responsiveness, given the resident’s continued reports. No evidence has been provided that it did this to monitor the performance about the issue and this was unreasonable.
The landlord should have considered if it was appropriate for the nominated point of contact within the management company, ought to have continued as such. The failure to do so added to the resident’s lack of confidence in the landlord’s actions. It failed to show him that it understood the situation, or that it considered his reasons. It also should have explained why it would not/could not provide him with an alternative contact at that point. This would have demonstrated that it was taking a customer focused approach and it looked to keep him fully informed. The continued failure to acknowledge the resident’s reasons would have contributed to his repeated refusal to engage with the management company.
Despite being in communication with the management company, in this instance, the landlord failed to show that it investigated why there were such delays in it acting. For example, it should have looked to identify what steps the managing company had taken following the opinion provided in the August 2021 survey. Doing so would have allowed it to have an insight into what actions it was or had taken in response to the survey. This in turn would have allowed it to judge whether the managing company was acting proportionately to the reported situation, and if not ensure appropriate steps were taken. It also would have allowed it to know exactly how serious the matter was, and the level of accountability it needed to hold its agent too around the issues. The spotlight report states that landlords should be able to demonstrate attempts at effective engagement with their management company. This allows a landlord to establish the root cause of issues, develop clear action plans, and ensure that performance is both proactively and robustly monitored.
The survey in December 2022 identified that there were issues affecting the grounds around the block and advised that works should commence immediately to mitigate risks. When the resident raised questions about a plan of action and sought an update on the works in February 2023, he was provided with the advice from the inspection in November 2022. This was confusing for the resident as he was provided with inconsistent information following the latest survey.
Further, as the survey had identified that there was an immediate risk, the Ombudsman would have expected to see that a risk assessment was completed to identify any immediate risks and steps that could be taken to mitigate them. No evidence has been provided to suggest the landlord took such action and this was unacceptable. Completing such an assessment would have aided in reassuring the resident that the matter was being taken seriously, and it had understood his concerns.
The landlord has not demonstrated that it took appropriate steps to ensure that the required works were planned in within a reasonable timeframe. It failed to supervise and make sure that the management company had an appropriate action plan in place with proposed dates for repairs to take place as previously discussed. It also did not make sure that the works were completed with urgency, especially as one of the reports identified immediate action was required. It has not demonstrated that it appropriately supervised the situation, as the evidence suggests, delays in it taking reasonable action to address the concerns. It should have held the management company accountable and taken steps to manage its performance to ensure that the works were completed, and recommendations followed within a reasonable timeframe.
A further survey was completed in May 2023. It is unclear if this was the reason for the delays in acting on the recommendations of the previous survey. If this was the reason, this should have been explained to the resident. This would have allowed it to manage his expectations and provide him with an update around the works. Instead, the resident was left pursuing answers, and this led to frustration for him. The delays in addressing the matter also led to him escalating his concerns to the local authority to get a resolution, and this was unreasonable.
The survey in May 2023 also made recommendations around the damage to the various areas of the property. From the evidence, following the recommendations of the surveys, works did not begin until August 2023. This is over a year since he originally advised the landlord of the issues. No explanation has been provided to explain why there was such a delay, and this was unacceptable. It took a substantial amount of time for the required works to be identified, and the required actions taken to begin to rectify them. This added to the resident’s frustrations with the landlord, lack of trust and confidence in its ability to hold the management company accountable and also caused him distress.
In summary, once the potential issue was highlighted in August 2021, there is no evidence to support that proactive steps were taken to investigate in a timely manner. Although the landlord remained in contact with the resident and its management company, it failed to show that it put in place robust measures to monitor its agent’s performance on the matter. There is also no evidence that following the surveys, the recommendations were followed in a timely manner as one of them had suggested immediate action was required. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.

Complaint handling

Following the resident’s initial complaint, the landlord provided no evidence that it was ever acknowledged. This was unreasonable and would have left the resident questioning if his complaint had been received, causing him frustration with the service he had received.
The landlord forwarded the resident’s complaint about the management company to the management company. Given the resident’s ongoing reports about the management company at the time, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure who the response was required from. If it was unsure, it could have taken steps to satisfy itself by asking relevant questions to the resident. Its failure to appropriately consider the facts of the complaint led to a delay in the complaint handling. This was unreasonable and caused the resident frustration with the landlord. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report explains that it is essential that landlords are clear about complaint handling between itself and its agents.
From the point the resident raised his complaint in May 2022 to the landlord’s stage 1 response, there was a delay of 26 working days. This is outside of the timescales within its complaints policy, and this was unreasonable. Although it provided him with an explanation of the misunderstanding around the complaint response, there is no evidence that it ever provided him with updates on the continued delays in its response. It also has not demonstrated that it asked him for extensions to provide its response late. The lack of information about the landlord’s response would have caused the resident disappointment and added to his lack of confidence in the landlord’s actions.
The resident explained he was informed that he would be contacted by the investigating officer for his complaint prior to the stage 1 response, and this did not happen. Instead, the landlord issued the response without speaking to the resident. Although it tried to reassure him that it had considered all the evidence prior to providing its response, despite the failure to speak with him. This was unreasonable as an expectation had been created with the resident, and the landlord should have adhered to its commitment. Speaking with him would have provided an opportunity to clarify any issues which were unclear and allowed it to potentially manage his expectations. The failure to abide by its word would have added to the resident’s lack of trust and confidence in the landlord and its actions.
Following the resident’s escalation request in July 2022, he chased the landlord 3 times before he was provided a stage 2 response. A response was due to be provided to the resident within 20 working days and the landlord failed to do this. It then failed to ask for an extension to provide its response late in a timely manner. The landlord has provided no evidence of when it requested the extension from the resident, however the information provided suggests this was requested 13 working days after the stage 2 response was initially due, this was unreasonable. Whilst positive that the landlord requested the necessary extension from the resident, this should have been done at an earlier point.
The failure to act promptly in requesting the extension led to delays in the complaint handling process. The response was provided 23 working days late and this was unacceptable and would have caused the resident frustration.
In summary the landlord inappropriately asked its management company to respond to the resident’s complaint where it should have. This led to delays in the complaint handling process. There were delays in its stage 1 response and it then failed to ask for an extension in providing its stage 2 response in a timely manner and this led to further delays in the process. It raised his expectations that he would be contacted about the investigation at stage 1 and failed to meet the expectations. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of reports of damage to the building, paving, and the management company’s response.
2. Maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to show that it appropriately managed and supervised the management company in its actions around the required works. There was no evidence provided that proactive steps were taken to investigate the matter once aware. No evidence has also been provided that the recommendations of the surveys were followed in a timely manner. There was awareness of the potential issue for over 2 years before any repairs were effected.
There was confusion in the landlord’s complaint handling, and this led to unnecessary delays. It raised the resident’s expectations that he would be consulted prior to a response being issued and then did not do so.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with an apology around the identified failings with its handling of reports of damage to the building, paving, its management of its agent, and its complaint handling.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £600 comprising of:
  1. £400 for its failings around its handling of reports of damage to the building, paving, and the management company’s response.
  2. £200 for its complaint handling failings.
3. Provide the resident with an action plan and timescales for completion of works if any works remain outstanding.
4. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.
Within 6 weeks of this report, the landlord must Review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on managing agents and identify any changes it can implement in managing the relationship with the management company. The landlord must also provide proof of compliance.